The hottest point of view the eight most stupid ma

  • Detail

Viewpoint: the eight stupidest management fashions in history

when you walk into the life of every office worker, you will always encounter some wind and rain... And this wind and rain often takes the form of the latest stupid fashion, which makes your management messy. In most cases, a new management fashion means endless meetings, the new popularity of office flattery, 1-like fixtures that can't meet the requirements, and overtime that eventually drives you crazy, or shuts down your company

this post contains the eight most abominable, stupid, painful and useless management fashions I have ever encountered. It also provides some valuable experience to tell you how to survive this terrible management until it collapses (it will eventually...). Of course, one kind of fashion management will be forgotten by others because of the introduction of another management fashion by the management. However, everyone says that working life is by no means easy

stupid fashion 1: Six Sigma

Creator: Motorola (based on total quality management)

Theory: This is to improve the quality of your process by identifying and eliminating the causes of defects. According to their expertise in six sigma methods, you designate various people to distinguish each other with different colors of "belts" (like karate classes). You also get a series of clear steps and quantitative financial goals

reality: it establishes a "belt" expert hierarchy. These experts run around the company, pretending that they know how to do better than others who are engaged in a certain job. Then there are endless meetings, which are of little or no use at all. Consulting companies that implement Six Sigma easily make a lot of money

result: waste time and energy. Quoting a quality control expert in Fortune magazine, "among the 58 large enterprises that have announced six sigma plans, 91% later fell behind the S & P 500. On the other hand, it gave birth to the industry of" consulting ", which makes a living by destroying the productivity of your company

my view on this fashion: Oh, please. The potbellied managers with a few colored belts ran around as if they were people in Bruce Lee's movies or the superhuman world. This is the way to help the company out of the downturn. You can't make it up. It's so incredibly stupid

the possibility that you will encounter this situation at least once: 55%

if you do so, your strategy: if your company implements Six Sigma, you will pay the "cost" for Six Sigma in about two years. 20% of the time is wasted in meaningless parliamentary activities. Two years later, the managers who implement it will either be fired or promoted. In either case, the six sigma process will be abandoned halfway

stupid fashion 2: Business Process Reengineering

Creator: Michael Hammer

Theory: analyze the workflow of your organization and reengineer it to achieve the expected business results. Set up a cross department team to redesign independent functional tasks into a complete cross department process. Through enterprise resource planning, supply chain management, and so on, the integration involves a wide range of business functions

reality: forget to redesign the process. Reengineering is layoffs. Senior managers use this idea to justify layoffs so that they appear to be really doing something reasonable. Instead of just temporarily raising the stock price, they also get considerable short-term stock option returns

result: a series of layoffs, followed by the complete collapse of your company. It will happen sooner or later

my view on this fashion: the whole idea is hopelessly stupid. When a company is running normally, changing its management structure on a large scale is like trying to redesign and reassemble a car when you break down on the highway. In any case, reengineering assumes that enterprises fail due to poor processes, but the fact is almost all the result of poor management

the possibility that you encounter this situation at least once. 1. The operators of this equipment must receive corresponding training: 65%

if you encounter this situation like this, your strategy: if your company announces that it will restructure, please update your resume. Please socialize crazily as soon as possible and go to any company that agrees to hire you. Even if you are lucky enough to avoid layoffs, you won't want to continue working there after the reconstruction project lasts for a period of time. Believe me, it must be so

stupid fashion 3: matrix management

Creator: Agent Smith

Theory: people with similar skills are gathered according to work tasks. For example, all engineers may be in one engineering department and responsible to one engineering manager, but these engineers may be assigned to different projects and responsible to a project manager in the process of working for the project. Therefore, each engineer may have to work under several managers to complete their work

reality: an endless and exhausting turf battle. Every manager struggles to be seen as the "real" manager of the employee. They do this by forcing everyone to attend "staff meetings" and by creating additional hoops and obstacles to prove that they are truly in charge

result: all production work was stopped immediately. Management has become completely consumed in the debate about who should do what when. Because the system produces more managers, enterprises quickly become top heavy. Finally, the top management pointed out that this was an incurable stupid idea and appointed a person in charge

my view on this fashion: I actually work in an enterprise with matrix management. Everyone is responsible to three managers, who insist on three hours of mandatory meetings per week (no agenda). Their manager also requires everyone to attend a mandatory one hour meeting every week in order to "promote communication". Ten hours - 25% of a week's work time - were wasted in vain

the possibility that you will encounter this situation at least once: 10%

if you do so, your strategy: please ensure that you can access the Internet in the company's meeting room. In the endless scuffle, you can reply to emails, browse pages, play games and so on. Otherwise, you have to wait for the end in the torment. It will not last more than a year

stupid fashion 4: management method of consistent decision-making

Creator: Plato

Theory: important decisions should be made unanimously by all people in the organization. Develop proposals through cooperation, and comprehensive agreement is the main goal. The management of consistent decision-making is often seen as an alternative to the "top-down" decision-making method in hierarchical organizations

reality: since everyone has a say in decision-making, anyone can effectively veto any decision. Therefore, only decisions that are completely harmless and support the status quo can be adopted. Difficult decisions - those that may disturb others - are quietly put aside

result: please forget the wisdom of the masses. The masses are so stupid that they can't even figure out what the masses think. Specifically, consensus decision-making often leads to the so-called "abilin paradox". A group will unanimously agree on what no member of the group wants to do, because no one is willing to go against the will perceived by the group

my view on this fashion: the management method of unanimous decision-making is like swimming in a pool full of quicksand. Because important decisions can never be reached, the whole organization is like a headless fly and is going to die. By the way, the management of consistent decision-making sometimes happens by chance when managers in the group are afraid of making decisions because the people who work for them may be offended

the possibility that you will encounter this situation at least once: 35%

if you do so, your strategy: take the initiative to keep the meeting minutes. You make your own decision and publicize it as a consensus. Unless you are too ambitious, no one will pay attention to it. For example, you claim that this consensus decision is that everyone should wear underwear outside

stupid fashion 5: core competitiveness

Creator: M. E. Porter

Theory: focus on what your company is better at than anyone else. This will make your strategy more difficult for competitors to imitate, and avoid letting your enterprise waste time on things they are not good at

reality: like the managers who operate them, most enterprises? Did not realize this. Therefore, they seldom know what they are really good at. In many cases, enterprises think they are good at doing something, but in fact they succeed for some completely different reasons

result: core competitiveness usually ends as a myth, closing a company in the past success. Therefore, companies that focus on their core competitiveness soon find that they have significantly outperformed their competitors

my view on this fashion: like all management fashions, it sounds like a great idea, but it must be implemented by enterprise managers, which means that even if it is the most brilliant idea in the world, they will still make a mess

the possibility that you will encounter this situation at least once: 85%

if you do so, your strategy: participate in the committee that is considered to determine core competitiveness. Please make sure that whatever you do is the core competitiveness of the company. If you fail, surrender to the right team that won the debate

stupid fashion 6: management by objectives system

Creator: Peter Drucker

Theory: define goals within the organization so that management and employees can accept this goal and understand their role in the organization. Then compare the actual performance of employees with the set of standards and agreed goals

reality: everyone spends hours planning for the future. When the future becomes a reality, the final result and the initial expectation are not similar. Therefore, everyone is finally either doing the work that may have been done a year ago, or doing things that were not mentioned in the original plan, and then spending extra energy to make them look as if they are implementing the previous plan

result: countless obsolete and useless planning documents and useless things. The success rate in a typical company is said to be about 6%

my view on this fashion: there is nothing wrong with setting goals and making sure you know what you should do, but when MBO has only become part of the old-fashioned market feedback, it has become a fashion. In the worst case, it becomes a written nightmare that exhausts the flexibility of the enterprise

you can effectively improve the corner formability. The probability of encountering this situation is less than once: 90%

if you do so, your strategy is to make your goals as vague as possible, and there are many ways to measure it. Therefore, no matter what happens

Copyright © 2011 JIN SHI